|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 25 2015 09:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 07:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:As the nation continues to reel from last week’s mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine churchgoers dead, data shows that since 9/11 there have been more deadly attacks in the U.S. carried out by “right-wing” assailants than so-called “jihadists.” What’s more, right-wing attacks have killed almost twice as many Americans.
According to a count of “lethal terrorist incidents” by “homegrown extremists” tallied by the New America Foundation (NAF), a New York-based nonprofit, the Charleston incident brought the number of right-wing attacks since 9/11 to 19, resulting in the deaths of 48 Americans. By contrast, “jihadists” — a term often used to describe militant Muslims — carried out seven attacks, resulting in 26 deaths.
The Charleston shooting, allegedly at the hands of Dylann Roof, 21, a purported white supremacist, was the latest in a series of deadly right-wing attacks in the U.S, according to NAF data.
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles.
By contrast, incidents listed by NAF as “deadly jihadist attacks” include cases in which the assailant disagreed with U.S. government policies and actions, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, many of the assailants involved in the attacks have ties to the Middle East or Islam.
Included in the list is the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, in which brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed four people out of anger toward U.S. foreign policy and its perceived affects on Muslim communities.
Another attack cited was the 2002 shooting by Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Hadayet of two Israelis at an El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Like the Tsarnaev brothers, Hadayet was not affiliated with any group, but had espoused anti-Israeli views and was opposed to U.S. policies in the Middle East. Source Pretty sleazy job on that report. A neutral publication might've gone non-Jihadi, but nowadays media love to lump in white-supremacists and various murderous nuts in the right wing--along with the Tea Party and various conservative groups. Homegrown extremists hits closer to the mark. Show nested quote +According to manifestos or other messages left behind by the right-wing killers, the attacks were less about government policies and more about people who didn't share the same race, beliefs or lifestyles. Of course, let's call them right-wing! Show nested quote +
Other incidents listed include attacks on a Sikh temple, Jewish center, multiple Christian churches and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
They couldn't find anything in common in this list? But, hand it to a liberal think tank to put more of an edge in an article on non-Muslim extremists.
I feel like they do that to try and combat the disproportionate distaste that much of the American public has towards Muslims, because the crap that we do inside of our country- to our own people- is much worse (body count-wise, hate and prejudice-wise) than terrorist attacks on our country by Muslim extremists, and the vast majority of our shootings and massacres and other attacks aren't by Muslims anyway.
If the bias (or "edge", as you put it), was actually proportional in terms of who's really attacking our country, then we'd have almost entirely stopped mentioning the word "Muslim", and we'd certainly be hearing words like "white supremacist" and "bigot" and "depressed male" and even "Christian".
|
On June 25 2015 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 25 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:30 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:24 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2015 05:23 Chocolate wrote:On June 25 2015 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2015 05:02 Chocolate wrote:
I have a very off-topic question: when employees of a company or a branch of the government protest or go on strike, why can't (I assume they can't) their employees fire them and hire new employees? What law is this? Also, what is the reasoning behind closed-shops existing? I don't really know much about unions except that my father is a big unionist.
I was thinking about this after reading the thread about the dutch government worker protests and to me it didn't make sense that people could do that and just get away with it. They can't legally fire people for protesting,or attempting to collectively bargain, but it's not hard to find another 'reason' to fire them if they do. + Show Spoiler +Most businesses just have rules that are regularly broken by everyone in order to meet the basic job requirements, so that if they need a reason they just write you up for what everyone is doing. I don't think people should be fired for bullshit reasons but in my opinion being an employee and refusing to work is a good enough reason by itself to fire someone, is it not? http://www.nlrb.gov/strikes I am aware that this is a right but I don't really see a good justification for it other than sticking it to greedy business owners If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. This seems okay to me but I don't see good justification for: "they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. " Are you familiar with what workplaces were like before workers had such protections? From the economic history that I've read, workplaces were a step up in terms of pay and safety from life on the farm and whatever small craftsman operations existed. You can see that dynamic play out in the developing world. Working at a textile factory in Bangladesh is pretty crummy from a 1st world standpoint, but is a marked improvement for the people working there. As far as unions and regulations go, they can be useful when accidents are caused by a lack of knowledge and insisting on or forcing change can be beneficial for everyone. On the flip-side they can cause wasteful bureaucracies to crop up and stifle innovation so use with caution. Edit: oh, I should also add that sometimes unions / laws are useful because it helps get workers on board with safety procedures. Sometimes it's the workers who want to take shortcuts, and using social pressure from the union or laws as a smokescreen can be helpful when trying to get those guys in line. And zero mention of the blatant exploitation of the worker by the employer that was systemic throughout every developing country's economy in the early modern era when there were little to no laws protecting workers or their right to collectively bargain. Keep pushin' that narrative.
I'm not trying to push a narrative. I'd be interested in what you think that narrative is though, given that I made positive comments towards both unions and regulations.
As for worker exploitation, some undoubtedly felt that they were being exploited unfairly (some still do). But that's a pretty subjective thing and most people also seemed to be happy with improving living standards. I didn't bring it up because I don't see it as a very useful topic. Economies that are developing tend to follow a rocky road and developments like unionization and regulatory authorities don't seem to give a very clear before and after picture of improvement.
|
Dear God Bobby Jindal. The clown car is ready to burst. Too bad there won't be room for everyone in the primary debates. After Star Wars that's the entertainment I'm most looking forward to in the near future...
|
Dylann Roof (wtf does this name have two "n"?) burned the American flag, something any country-loving conservative would do. Oh, and White Supremacists really hate Jews. Again, very conservative of him.
I use the word "conservative" because from a little snooping I found no definintion provided for "right-wing" anywhere. Or left-wing, but they didn't have any stats on that anyway. Figured I'd use it here because in this thread they are often used interchangeably.
More useless bait articles.
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying a White House veto threat, the Republican-controlled House approved a plan Wednesday to block a key element of President Barack Obama's strategy for fighting climate change.
Lawmakers voted 247-180 to support a bill allowing states to opt out of the Obama administration's plan to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants if the state's governor determines it would cause significant rate hikes for electricity or harm reliability of service.
The bill also would delay the climate rule until all court challenges are completed. Eight Democrats joined 239 Republicans to support the bill. Four Republicans voted against the measure.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., said it would not reject Obama's plan outright, but would simply give states more time to comply, while protecting families and businesses from potentially catastrophic electricity rate hikes.
Last June, Obama rolled out a plan to reduce earth-warming pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, setting in motion one of the most significant U.S. actions ever to address global warming. Once completed this summer, the rule will set the first national limits on carbon dioxide from existing power plants, the largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
The administration says the rule is expected to raise electricity prices by about 4.9 percent by 2020 and spur a wave of retirements of coal-fired power plants.
A report by a consulting firm on behalf of a variety of industry groups predicts more severe impacts. The report by Boston-based NERA Economic Consulting says the plan would raise electricity prices by an average of 12 percent from 2017 to 2031 and cause nearly four dozen additional coal-fired power plants to retire beyond those expected to retire under current rules.
Whitfield said his bill would protect jobs, noting that in Kentucky, 92 percent of electricity is generated by coal, contributing more than $3.5 billion to the state's economy and employing 17,900 miners across the state. The coal industry is responsible for more than 700,000 jobs nationwide, Whitfield said, calling the bill part of "an all-out assault" by the Obama administration on energy abundance in the United States.
Whitfield, chairman of House subcommittee on energy and power, accused Obama of deploying the Environmental Protection Agency "to do whatever it takes to shut down fossil fuel-fired power plants across the country."
Source
|
I didn't realize a 5% price increase and saving a few jobs mattered if we're all dead. But of course, those are two very convenient points that allow Republicans to cover their asses when they appeal to their big businesses.
|
Meanwhile Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is trying to extend tractor trailer lengths (making it harder for smaller companies to compete) and driver hours from 70 to 80 (rolling back the 34 hour restart rule) as if they aren't dangerously exhausted as is. And of course the media spins it as her being a "friend" to the industry and truckers. Typical example.
“Sen. Collins wants to roll back current work protections and instead allow trucking industry executives to force truck drivers to work more than 80 hours a week. This is inhumane and a formula for tired truckers wiping out innocent families in preventable truck crashes. This means big bucks to the trucking companies who are exempt from federal requirements to pay overtime to their drivers."
Source
|
On June 25 2015 12:15 screamingpalm wrote:Meanwhile Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is trying to extend tractor trailer lengths (making it harder for smaller companies to compete) and driver hours from 70 to 80 (rolling back the 34 hour restart rule) as if they aren't dangerously exhausted as is. And of course the media spins it as her being a "friend" to the industry and truckers. Typical example. Show nested quote +
“Sen. Collins wants to roll back current work protections and instead allow trucking industry executives to force truck drivers to work more than 80 hours a week. This is inhumane and a formula for tired truckers wiping out innocent families in preventable truck crashes. This means big bucks to the trucking companies who are exempt from federal requirements to pay overtime to their drivers."
Source
Eh? From what I read the rollback was for the two 1am - 5am period requirement. There's still a 34 hour restart rule, you just don't need to take your break between certain hours. What's wrong with that?
Browsing crash statistics, safety increased substantially between the early 90's and today (roughly cut in half per mile traveled) and is better for trucks than passenger cars, so I reject the 'inhumane' and 'wiping out innocent families' rhetoric.
Oddly, safety seems to have steadily improved until hitting a low in 2009 and then getting worse. I good understanding of why that is may tell you if the new rule was necessary or not.
|
I'm guessing the Lochner era wasn't really mentioned in school for some people
|
On June 25 2015 13:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Eh? From what I read the rollback was for the two 1am - 5am period requirement. There's still a 34 hour restart rule, you just don't need to take your break between certain hours. What's wrong with that?
I haven't seen anything about keeping the 34 hour restart rule- that is one of the regulations Collins is getting rid of as far as I can tell. I mean, I'd agree that it makes more sense for drivers to be operating at the hours of 1-5 a.m. but I haven't seen any new regulations to replace the old.
Attached as a policy rider to the $55 billion Transportation, Housing and Urban Development fiscal 2016 appropriations bill now being considered by the full U.S. House of Representatives is a provision allowing truck drivers to work longer hours, haul larger double-trailers in every state and prevent the U.S. Department of Transportation from raising minimum insurance requirements from the current standards, which haven't been adjusted in 30 years.
The longer workweek was bad enough. Congress pulled off a similar maneuver to achieve that result last year, but the provision was set to only last 12 months. This time it would be more permanent: By reducing the number of hours truckers are forced to rest under the so-called "restart" rule, their workweek could essentially be extended from the maximum 70 hours allowed prior to this year to a maximum of 82 hours.
Just as disconcerting is the prospect of mandating acceptance of what's known in the industry as "Twin 33s," trucks hauling two trailers each of which is 33 feet long instead of the standard 28 feet. Such double trucks are prohibited in Maryland and more than two-thirds of states, but the provision attached to the appropriations bill would allow them in all 50.
Finally, the measure prohibits the federal government from requiring trucking companies to carry insurance above the current $750,000 per incident. That may have seemed adequate in 1985 when the government last set the regulatory standard, but it was scheduled to be updated shortly — which is precisely why trucking companies have sought the freeze.
Source
|
On June 25 2015 14:09 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 13:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Eh? From what I read the rollback was for the two 1am - 5am period requirement. There's still a 34 hour restart rule, you just don't need to take your break between certain hours. What's wrong with that?
I haven't seen anything about keeping the 34 hour restart rule- that is one of the regulations Collins is getting rid of as far as I can tell. I mean, I'd agree that it makes more sense for drivers to be operating at the hours of 1-5 a.m. but I haven't seen any new regulations to replace the old. Show nested quote +
Attached as a policy rider to the $55 billion Transportation, Housing and Urban Development fiscal 2016 appropriations bill now being considered by the full U.S. House of Representatives is a provision allowing truck drivers to work longer hours, haul larger double-trailers in every state and prevent the U.S. Department of Transportation from raising minimum insurance requirements from the current standards, which haven't been adjusted in 30 years.
The longer workweek was bad enough. Congress pulled off a similar maneuver to achieve that result last year, but the provision was set to only last 12 months. This time it would be more permanent: By reducing the number of hours truckers are forced to rest under the so-called "restart" rule, their workweek could essentially be extended from the maximum 70 hours allowed prior to this year to a maximum of 82 hours.
Just as disconcerting is the prospect of mandating acceptance of what's known in the industry as "Twin 33s," trucks hauling two trailers each of which is 33 feet long instead of the standard 28 feet. Such double trucks are prohibited in Maryland and more than two-thirds of states, but the provision attached to the appropriations bill would allow them in all 50.
Finally, the measure prohibits the federal government from requiring trucking companies to carry insurance above the current $750,000 per incident. That may have seemed adequate in 1985 when the government last set the regulatory standard, but it was scheduled to be updated shortly — which is precisely why trucking companies have sought the freeze.
Source
LOL party of State's Rights. 2/3 of states say no to these trucks. Republican congress runs right over them.
|
On June 25 2015 14:52 Dota_Lust wrote:
LOL party of State's Rights. 2/3 of states say no to these trucks. Republican congress runs right over them.
Yep, gotta love the typical hypocrisy and irony lmao.
|
If only hypocrisy were a fireable offense for politicians, then we could fire them all, and eventually find a few non-hypocritical people to fill the positions.
|
You should be careful not to equate "not hypocritical" to "good", though. You can have a perfectly genuine and consistent person that is still horrible. The values they are consistent at are also very important.
|
On June 25 2015 10:56 Introvert wrote:
Dylann Roof (wtf does this name have two "n"?) burned the American flag, something any country-loving conservative would do. Oh, and White Supremacists really hate Jews. Again, very conservative of him.
I use the word "conservative" because from a little snooping I found no definintion provided for "right-wing" anywhere. Or left-wing, but they didn't have any stats on that anyway. Figured I'd use it here because in this thread they are often used interchangeably.
More useless bait articles.
right wing is typically in favour of hierarchies be they religious, racial, gender, nationality, etc... So he fits that name. I suppose your definition of conservative doesn't include the christian traditional views on jews? I wouldn't judge his murderous state of mind as conservative though (in my own hipster definition of conservative).
|
On June 25 2015 13:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 12:15 screamingpalm wrote:Meanwhile Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is trying to extend tractor trailer lengths (making it harder for smaller companies to compete) and driver hours from 70 to 80 (rolling back the 34 hour restart rule) as if they aren't dangerously exhausted as is. And of course the media spins it as her being a "friend" to the industry and truckers. Typical example.
“Sen. Collins wants to roll back current work protections and instead allow trucking industry executives to force truck drivers to work more than 80 hours a week. This is inhumane and a formula for tired truckers wiping out innocent families in preventable truck crashes. This means big bucks to the trucking companies who are exempt from federal requirements to pay overtime to their drivers."
Source Eh? From what I read the rollback was for the two 1am - 5am period requirement. There's still a 34 hour restart rule, you just don't need to take your break between certain hours. What's wrong with that? Browsing crash statistics, safety increased substantially between the early 90's and today (roughly cut in half per mile traveled) and is better for trucks than passenger cars, so I reject the 'inhumane' and 'wiping out innocent families' rhetoric. Oddly, safety seems to have steadily improved until hitting a low in 2009 and then getting worse. I good understanding of why that is may tell you if the new rule was necessary or not.
I don't know if what they are saying is true, but if there's a situation where a company can legitimately get away with forcing someone to work 70 or 80 hours without overtime, that's really fucked up.
|
ACA subsidies upheld by Supreme Court 6-3
|
On June 25 2015 23:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
ACA subsidies upheld by Supreme Court 6-3
Oh good.
Tho part of me wanted to see the Republicans scramble to try and stop the national disaster they would have created.
|
The Supreme Court once again decides that destroying the american healthcare system would have been a bad plan. Republicans continue to be confused as to why removing the thing that funds hospitals and urgent care would have been bad.
|
On June 25 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote:
The Supreme Court once again decides that destroying the american healthcare system would have been a bad plan. Republicans continue to be confused as to why removing the thing that funds hospitals and urgent care would have been bad.
Nuh uh, Marco Rubio has a plan:
"I disagree with the Court's ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in forcing Obamacare on the American people," said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. "I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it with my consumer-centered plan that puts patients and families back in control of their health care decisions."
It's consumer centered too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
